III. Arise to Challenge

In this section, we will analyze the successful cases of ascension in revisionism —i.e. those units which did became great revisionist powers. If the theory of the revisionist ascension is right, on the one hand, it should satisfyingly explain the rise of these powers and, on the other, the historical reality should fit with the explanation provided by it. This is what Popper calls the “deductive method” of scientific validation.

The scientist, either theoretical or experimental, proposes statements —or systems of statements— and contrasts them step by step. In particular, in the field of empirical sciences, he builds hypotheses —or systems of theories— and contrasts them with experience by means of observation and experiments.[1]

The cases by which the theory of revisionist ascension will be tested are the rise of Hatti and Assyria.

 

The Hittite New Kingdom

The ascension of Hatti was ignited by two events. On the one hand, King Artatama had achieved to reestablish Mitanni’s past glory and had reached an alliance with the Egyptian pharaoh, which resulted in the division of the region of Syria between the two powers. This stopped any attempt from Hatti to increase its influence over that neighboring zone and, by increasing, even more, Mitanni’s power, directly threatened Hatti’s survival. Mean while, on the other hand, one of the greatest crises in Hittite history took place. Hatti’s mainland was invaded by its Anatolian rivals simultaneously. The Kaskans, Arzawans, Arawannans, Azzians, Isuwans, and Armatanans pounced over Hatti, destroying everything in their path and even sacking and burning Hattusa —the capital.

The internal political system had been not only altered but destroyed. The later political forces of the Hittite territory had been either destroyed or submitted. The dominant unit was no more ruling but in exile, fleeing from its foreign rivals. Yet, within the Hittite ruling elite, divisions took place due to the political crisis. No political unit was able to regain Hatti from the invaders nor from the internal rivals. King Tudhaliya II and his son Suppiluliuma fought a continuous war against the foreigners. After years of war, the king died, leaving the throne of Hatti empty. Tudhaliya the Young inherited the Hittite rule; however, soon after he was overthrown and assassinated during a military coup which resulted in his brother’s ascension —Supiliuluma I. The political crisis had taken the heir to the throne of Hatti.

When the new dominant political unit —led by Supiliuluma— seized power, it faced the same threat that had become alive and eliminated his brother’s group: the disruptive foreign stimulus of a sacked, subjugated, and destroyed Hatti had not been stopped. Thus, if the new king wanted to survive and continue in power, he had to retake his lost land and overthrow the power relation of submission with the Anatolian powers and Mitanni —who backed them. Thus, after defeating Arzawan —its most powerful external rival— and reconquering most of the kingdom, Armatana and Isuwa had to be defeated; however, both of them were militarily backed by Mitanni and the risk of this power to defend them was higher than the probability to successfully face it. Thus, by expanding its control over its defeated Anatolian rivals and establishing an imperial structure upon them and by restoring the destroyed mainland, Hatti increased its capacity of extraction and its systemic power.

Once capable of deterring Mitanni from helping its Anatolian allies, Supiliuluma’s Hatti launched an offensive campaign which resulted in the total recapture of the lost territories and complete submission of Anatolia under the Hittite rule. Thus, Hatti had arisen as a great power, driven by the necessity of survival, by the need to overthrow the onerous status quo of submission. The next step to consolidate its position and to totally overcome its former subjugators was to break down Mitanni.

Thus, when the opportunity appeared, Hatti made the move. After a series of palace intrigues, Mitanni’s royal house was threatened by a severe political crisis.

[…] [O]n Suttarna’s death, dynastic rivalries broke out in the kingdom. The king’s son and successor Artasumara was assassinated by a military officer Utkhi, and replaced on the throne by his younger brother Tusratta[, whose] elevation did not go unchallenged.[2]

Mitanni’s internal political weakness opened the way to Hatti. Thus, Supiliuluma invaded the neighboring empire, submitted it, and established a vassal king. The revisionist power had defeated the last of its enemies and, in the mean time, had achieved greatness.

 

Assyria

During the time of Mitannian expansion over Mesopotamia, King Saustatar annexed the small king of Assyria, changing the neighboring kingdom into a vassal state, leaving of it just its core —the city of Assur. In a first moment, the royalty of Assur was left in control but, as time passed, the government of the vassal state was taken by Mitannian officials.

Legal texts found at Assur from the fifteenth century mention officials with Hurrian [Mitannian] names and two latter officials left monuments indicating that their forebears had served they king of Hanigalbat, which is an alternative for Mitanni.[3]

In the times of Mitannian domination, Assyria was left as a weak city, functioning more as a border territory with Babylon and thus continuously intervened by the Mitannian army which sought to reinforce its frontiers with the Kassite empire. This was the disruptive stimulus to the internal political system of Assyria that ignited the process of ascension of Assur as a great power.

Assyria had lost its independence and, with the ruin of the royal house —the former dominating political unit—, came a situation of internal unrest. The Assyrian King List “[…] continued to be updated for legitimacy purposes throughout this phase of usurpations and internal revolts;”[4] however, it is clear that the internal political system of Assur was, on one hand, totally subdued to Mitanni’s dominion and, on the other, in a severe internal crisis. The external stimulus had been a factor of disruption in Assyrian politics and in its society.

As the theory of the ascension in revisionism argues, it is expected in the case of Assyria to see that one of the political units achieves to get control of the internal political system; however, we do not have precise information about how this event took place in Assur’s system. What we know is that, by the year 1365 bc, Ashur-uballit seized power. Either by inheritance or by other means, it is certain that the arrival of this king had been preceded by his predecessors’ seize of power over the Assyrian internal political system and that such dominion had been achieved by political means of oppression and defeat of the political rivals. Ashur-uballit and its political unit, in order to remain dominant, had to stop the disruptive stimulus coming from Mitanni. To continue being a vassal state logically would have meant to still be at the mercy of the foreign power, to risk being easily overthrown by the patron state when needed or wanted. Thus, the dominant strategy for the new rulers of Assur was to seek to end Mitanni’s inference and control over Assyria and its political system.

To face the rival in a context of imbalance of power is not a rational option. Thus, it is necessary either to achieve strength enough to defy the existence of such a situation or to wait for the opportunity to do so. While Assyria under the rule of Ashur-uballit achieved internal cohesion, restored order, and increased its power toward Mitanni, the external situation turned favorable. Mitanni was immersed in a severe internal crisis which resulted in the division of the empire into two different kingdoms: Mitanni and Hurri. The division if the ruling dynasty ignited a civil war which destroyed the empire. The Hurrians looked for help in their northern neighbor —Hatti. Eager to expand, the Hittite army invaded Mitanni and, in the meantime, took control over the territory, destroyed the Mitanni and turned its ally Hurri into a vassal. This was the opportunity for Assyria to finally achieve independence from Mitannian (and Hurrian) control.

The Hittite invasion left a power vacuum in northern Mesopotamia. With the rival weakened, Ashur-uballit’s Assyria launched a campaign to end foreign dominion and “[…] annex[ed] part of the eastern area of Mitanni, including the important grain growing areas of Nineveh, Kilizi, and Arbela […].”[5] Such a move resulted in the increase of Assyria’s natural resources —the most important, food—, human resources —new subjects—, and economic strength —increased wealth and production capacity. Assyria had achieved a change in the distribution of power in the international system of the Ancient Near East.

Such a growth in power had yet to be used to overthrow the power relation with the Mitannians and those who after them attempted to subjugate Assyria. Thus, Assur-uballit’s successor —Adad-ninari— “[…] marched against him [the ruler of Mitanni, Shattuara] and forced the Mitannian king to recognize Assyria as his overlord […].”[6] Assyria’s ascension was also consolidated and its relation as an equal stated in its diplomatic relations. On the one hand, this is shown by the fact that the Babylonian king espoused Assur-uballit’s daughter. On the other, this is also demonstrated in the “Amarna letters,” where the king of Assur addressed for the first time to the Egyptian pharaoh —seen by the other kings as a sort of primus inter pares— as “brother,” establishing diplomatic contact and a relation of exchanging of gifts, both of this aspects reserved only for the great kings of the Near East. Assyria had already achieved to overthrow the former power relation with its patron and had deterred the neighboring great power from attempting to establish control over it. A new great power had arisen and had done so in revisionism.